Edna Morris: interim executive director James Beard Foundation.

In September of 2004, after an investigation by the New York State Attorney General's office, it came to light that Len Pickell, president of the non-profit James Beard Foundation from 1994 to 2004, had been responsible for the misappropriation of over $1 million worth of Foundation funds. In the wake of that revelation, and Pickell's subsequent guilty plea, the Foundation's board of directors hired Edna Morris as interim executive director. Morris was called upon to bring fiscal transparency and a comprehensive code of ethics to the organization, which since its founding has sought to promote American food and chefs through its Awards program, dinners and scholarship fund. As she neared the end of her one-year term at the James Beard Foundation, Morris talked to Art Culinaire about her role there, and the future of the Foundation.

AC: How did you come to accept the interim executive director position at the James Beard Foundation?

EM: Last year [2004], just before the Christmas holidays, I received a call from some folks at American Express, whom I knew from my career in the restaurant industry. They asked if I was familiar with what had happened at the James Beard Foundation, which I had read about in the papers, and then they asked if I would be interested in coming and working with the Foundation. They were looking for an executive director with business experience who had worked in complex situations, turnaround situations and crisis situations. Initially what I knew about the Foundation were the Awards and the scholarships, but I had a greater sense that it was the gold standard, that it was something that really mattered to people in the world of food. So I came up to New York in January and spent a day talking to a variety of people. I spent time with Charlie Trotter and Daniel Boulud, and felt their very real passion for this Foundation, and what it had done for chefs, and continued to do for chefs. I also met with members of the former board--Rob Jones from Morgan Stanley, and George Sape, who was chairman of the board at the time. I met with Danny Meyer and Dorothy Cann Hamilton, who is now the chairman of the board. It was a wonderful, long day. I also had done a lot of due diligence on my own to understand the history of the Foundation, and the embezzlement situation. I signed releases so that I could read the investigative reports that had been done, because I wanted to come in with my eyes wide open, and also to make sure that I brought to the party what they needed. It was very clear from reading them that there was a lack of financial controls. There was no doubt in my mind that they needed me, or someone like me, in terms of the skills. Someone to come in and take an objective look, but also someone with a passion for what the organization was doing. So I accepted the assignment, for up to a year.

AC: As the former president of Red Lobster, you clearly bring a solid business perspective to this role. What are your other assets or skills that make you a good fit for this role?

EM: I think it was primarily my background in big business. [Food Arts publisher] Michael Batterbury is another person I met with that day, and he talked to me about the importance of communication. Listening and communicating outwardly with many, many different constituencies--the members, the sponsors, the staff, old board, new board, the Attorney General's office. So it was also my ability to communicate in both ways--the listening, the understanding, and translating what people were saying. The ability to put together strategies and plans for moving forward. It was also important to the board that the executive director really care about what the Foundation does, and I do. While I'm not a wonderful cook, I am a wonderful consumer of great food. So I brought an appreciation of what was at the heart and the soul of the Foundation.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

AC: Was there any concern on the part of members, the board or the sponsors about your experience with Red Lobster? I would suspect that some culinary elitism might have come into play.

EM: It was interesting, when I first got here and met so many different people and they heard that I was formerly the president of Red Lobster, some people could hardly get the phrase 'Red Lobster' out of their mouths. (laughing) I met with the staff as a group then met with them individually, and when it got to whether they had any questions, that was clearly one of the things on their minds: How is your experience at Red Lobster going to affect your experience with the Foundation? So we had good conversations about that. In everything I've read about James Beard, he was appreciative of good food wherever it was. I was at a CCAP benefit my first week, and I met one of our members, and his wife said to me, 'You know, I just love the lobster at Red Lobster.' I said to her, 'You are the first person I've met in this capacity who will admit that they've been in one.' You know, 2.7 million people a week go to Red Lobster, so it's clearly meeting a need.

AC: How did you prepare for your role as interim executive director of the James Beard Foundation?

EM: Before I came in, I read a lot of accounts of people making the transition from a public company to a not-for-profit. One of the most helpful pieces of advice was that, when you're transitioning from the business world to not-for-profit, don't come in talking about 'profit profit profit', which of course is this thing that for the last 25 years you've been conditioned to focus on. The reality is, in a not-for-profit, you still must be financially viable so that you can do the intended work of the foundation or mission.

AC: How financially viable was the James Beard Foundation when you assumed the role of executive director?

EM: It was very shaky financially. What no amount of due diligence allowed me to do until I got to the Foundation was to understand that we didn't really know what our financial condition was. We didn't have the basic controls and financial disciplines in place to even know what our cash flow situation was, or how we were investing our money. One of the things I underestimated and maybe everyone underestimated, was the number of things that needed attention, just to get the basics in place. I was not brought here to make the Foundation a bureaucracy. I was brought in to make sure that we had the appropriate financial discipline and control. What I tried to do in the first couple of weeks was to ask, what needs to happen first? How do we prioritize? How do we sequence? The first set of issues I focused on with the board and staff weren't sexy, they weren't exciting. It was about addressing financial and legal risks.

I remember sitting up in my office one night, thinking to myself, this is a five million-dollar foundation. Red Lobster was a two and half billion-dollar company. Why is this so hard? And it was so hard because of the number of things that needed immediate attention. What was very positive during that time was the support and offers of help from members and staff. In answer to your question, we did not know what our financial stability was until I hired a financial services firm called Kiwi, that works with not-for-profits, while also looking for a permanent CFO to start to get our arms around where we stood financially. And once we did that, we found out that we weren't in too strong a position.

AC: I know you can only speculate at this point, but how does an organization get to that point, where things are so out of control?

EM: One contributing factor is fast growth. The Foundation grew very quickly, especially since the start of the Awards. That's when the memberships started going up, and the revenue started going up, when the Awards became a bigger and bigger event and more and more treasured by the people who ran them. So there was very fast growth, and good things were happening at the Foundation at that time, in terms of events. I don't want to spend a lot of time on the past but I will say that I think you can have a person in an organization that gets off track, and it doesn't mean that the whole organization is bad.

In my first hundred days, we codified an ethics policy for the Foundation. Now, writing something on paper is one step, but we really spent time as a whole staff talking about the what and the why. The policy is very comprehensive, and very clear. The spirit and the intent are very clear about operating in a way that, whether you're a member, a journalist, a sponsor, a donor, a chef, whatever your relationship with the Foundation, you can feel confident that your money and the time that people are spending here is being spent on the right pursuits and in the right way. I have accessed what I consider some of the best ethics policies from both the not-for-profit and the for-profit worlds, and the real meat of it was around the conversation with the staff.

Also, when we're working with projects that are large dollar values--if we were going to renovate the house, for example, or for services associated with the Awards--we're making sure that we open them up appropriately, so that people have opportunities to bid on them. We want to get the best financial situation for the Foundation, but we also want to make sure to get the best creativity. Part of my responsibility is to work with the board to find my replacement, and we're doing that in a way that is very known and open, so that people can let us know that they are interested. We're using an outside search firm to help us with that. A long time ago people would say, 'If Dan Rather were standing there with a microphone, could you explain and would people understand why you did what you did?' That's part of regaining the credibility of the organization. I think we've made good progress. There are some skeptics out there, so time will tell.

AC: I was going to say, there are some chefs, journalists and even entire publications that have taken big steps to distance themselves from the Foundation and the Awards. Is there a sense of wanting to try and regain the trust of those who have decried the Foundation in a very public way?

EM: It's good for the food world for all of us to be aligned. We want any of those individuals and organizations who took a step back, or did more than take a step back, to come back into the fold, because the mission is stronger than ever. Right away I asked the staff, 'What has happened to our in-house events? Has attendance fallen off? Has membership fallen off? Have we lost sponsors?' I was looking for tangible evidence that people had lost faith, so that we could rebuild it, so that we could reach out to those people, as we have a good story to tell and we're confident that things will be done ethically and in good conscience. What we found was that we had one or two defections from the Awards committee, and from the journalism committee, which is understandable. People said, 'I want to know what's going on before I'm affiliated with this.' We also had a few members who wrote or called and explained why they would not renew their membership, and I have personally written to them or called them. Almost without exception they have rejoined. It's not about having to spin it. It's about being very honest about what we're doing and what's happening going forward. I think the capability of our group and the reputation of our board members in their own respected circles is also helpful. I think we're on the right track, but there are still skeptics and to answer your question, we absolutely want not only to mend relationships, but to earn new credibility and trust.

AC: Have there been any policy changes regarding sponsors, donations or scholarships?

EM: We are certainly still accepting donations and sponsorships! (laughing) What we're trying to do on the membership level, and for sponsorship, is to look at how it should work. Does it have good business value for sponsors? Are we treating people ethically? And we have made significant policy changes in our scholarship program. We're making sure that we can say with confidence that your money that's meant for scholarships is going for scholarships. We're working with a not-for-profit called Scholarship America that does a lot of the administration and management, making sure the word gets out about our scholarships.

AC: Did the Foundation lose any sponsors as a result of the scandal?

EM: We did lose an Awards sponsor, but it was not about the embezzlement. We were told that they were celebrating a milestone for their company, and that they wanted to use the money to celebrate. We were told they would be back, so we'll see. I've had conversations with a number of sponsors who have said, 'A bad thing happened, but the organization is not bad.' Again, we see it as an opportunity to get things in place that were not in place.

AC: Have you had a chance to meet or speak with Len Pickell?

EM: No. I have heard good things about some of the things he did for the Foundation, but I have never met or spoken with him.

AC: About six months after the embezzlement scandal came to light, Copia [the American Center for Wine, Food & the Arts, in Napa, California] announced plans for the creation of an awards ceremony that would potentially give the Beard Awards a run for its money. It's been said that they've taken advantage of the Beard Foundation's troubles to gain support for their agenda. What are your thoughts about this?

EM: I have two thoughts. Early on in my tenure, some chefs on the West Coast were kind enough to send me a transcript of a meeting they'd had about the Foundation, where they expressed what we saw as constructive criticism. One of the issues that they raised was that they feel isolated, because they're so far away from New York. I think that the more recognition we give to people who are doing wonderful things in the world of food, the better. I really do believe that strongly, so more power to them. On the other hand, what I think the James Beard Foundation has that's very unique is the legacy of James Beard. Chefs can come to where he cooked and where he lived, and do what they do for an appreciative audience. I am very proud to be affiliated with the group that has the legacy of James Beard.

AC: There have been some rumblings in the food world about your [$20,000 monthly] compensation package, and about the fact that the Foundation pays the rent on your apartment in New York. How do you respond to those critics?

EM: Well, the board did due diligence in coming up with a package. There are a lot of compensation surveys out there, sorted based on geography and on the size of operating budget and on the number of members. I can also say that this was a particular situation. It was a turnaround situation. I came into an institution in crisis, and it was not a walk in the park. It was a very fair compensation package, and that would be true for myself or anyone else who brought my particular skills and experience to the party. I'm not sure they had a line of fifty people waiting to do it--but I do think we will have a line of many, many people willing to do it as we go forward.

AC: What is the Foundation looking for in a new executive director?

EM: Leadership skills. That's the biggest thing--the ability to clearly articulate what the strategy and vision is, and to get people excited about it, whether it's staff members, the board of trustees or the chefs. Obviously, an understanding of administration is important, too. I think it's a plum position for the right person, because of what the future holds and what kind of impact the organization can have.

AC: What's the next step for you as you prepare to leave the Foundation, and will it be difficult for you to step down after this year?

EM: I have really mixed emotions about leaving. A couple of the board members have talked to me about extending my stay, but I think it's important for the Foundation to have its permanent leader sooner than later. I've been in this industry for a long time--I'm 53 years old--and I've had many different opportunities. I don't know if my next position will be in a corporate capacity, but it will be related to food. Maybe I'll finally go to cooking school! (laughing)

--Interview by Laurie Woolever

Conducted October 26, 2005